This article takes a doubly contrastive approach to spoken academic language. On the one hand, it explores genre differences between spoken and written academic English and French; on the other, it considers divergences between spoken academic discourse in the two languages. The corpora used for this purpose were purpose-built on the basis of YouTube video subtitles and other sources. The focus of attention is on keywords and key metadiscursive routines. The results suggest that, somewhat counterintuitively, the distance between academic speech and writing is smaller in French than it is in English, so that written routines can be more easily transferred to speech in French. French written and spoken discourse shows a greater degree of abstraction and self-referentiality than is the case in English. The article selectively illustrates that both French and English have a distinct set of spoken routines that are not used in writing; these need to be described and recorded in lexicographic resources to make them available for teachers and learners.
{"title":"This deserves a brief mention","authors":"D. Siepmann","doi":"10.1075/lic.21004.sie","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.21004.sie","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article takes a doubly contrastive approach to spoken academic language. On the one hand, it explores genre\u0000 differences between spoken and written academic English and French; on the other, it considers divergences between spoken academic\u0000 discourse in the two languages. The corpora used for this purpose were purpose-built on the basis of YouTube video subtitles and\u0000 other sources. The focus of attention is on keywords and key metadiscursive routines. The results suggest that, somewhat\u0000 counterintuitively, the distance between academic speech and writing is smaller in French than it is in English, so that written\u0000 routines can be more easily transferred to speech in French. French written and spoken discourse shows a greater degree of\u0000 abstraction and self-referentiality than is the case in English. The article selectively illustrates that both French and English\u0000 have a distinct set of spoken routines that are not used in writing; these need to be described and recorded in lexicographic\u0000 resources to make them available for teachers and learners.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84407474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper revisits the translational practices of Dominican missionaries who worked in multilingual settings in the Guatemalan highlands in the colonial period. It is argued that the missionaries developed the emerging ideas of European Renaissance linguistics and applied methods of contrastive linguistics to indigenous languages long before this discipline came into being. The main argument derives from an 18th-century collection of missionary writings in Q’eqchi’ and Poqomchi’, two Mayan languages spoken in Guatemala. An uncommon phrase-by-phrase alignment of bilingual texts allows for the assumption that a contrastive approach to genetically related languages could be the underlying principle in language learning and translation at that time.
{"title":"Pioneers of contrastive linguistics","authors":"I. Vinogradov","doi":"10.1075/lic.21013.vin","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.21013.vin","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper revisits the translational practices of Dominican missionaries who worked in multilingual settings in\u0000 the Guatemalan highlands in the colonial period. It is argued that the missionaries developed the emerging ideas of European\u0000 Renaissance linguistics and applied methods of contrastive linguistics to indigenous languages long before this discipline came\u0000 into being. The main argument derives from an 18th-century collection of missionary writings in Q’eqchi’ and Poqomchi’, two Mayan\u0000 languages spoken in Guatemala. An uncommon phrase-by-phrase alignment of bilingual texts allows for the assumption that a\u0000 contrastive approach to genetically related languages could be the underlying principle in language learning and translation at\u0000 that time.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84069036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper addresses the employment of body part nouns in the creation of phraseological expressions of some European languages, a topic at the crossroads of language, cognition and culture. In particular, the contrastive analysis explores the common linguistic representation of meanings through body part metaphorical expressions in Italian, French, Spanish and English. While several efforts to gauge the existence of a “European linguistic type” (cf. Haspelmath, 2001) have been largely devoted to the study of grammatical structures, a systematic account of the lexical component of the major European languages has not been attempted yet. Among the lexical units, phraseological expressions (e.g. compounds, multiword units, idiomatic expressions, as well as light verb and light noun constructions) represent a relevant ground to inquire into, since they are the most transparent and authentic vehicle of common ideas and experiences gradually rooted in European communicative realities.
{"title":"Body part metaphors in phraseological expressions","authors":"Vittorio Ganfi, Valentina Piunno, L. Mereu","doi":"10.1075/lic.21006.gan","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.21006.gan","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The paper addresses the employment of body part nouns in the creation of phraseological expressions of some\u0000 European languages, a topic at the crossroads of language, cognition and culture. In particular, the contrastive analysis explores\u0000 the common linguistic representation of meanings through body part metaphorical expressions in Italian, French, Spanish and\u0000 English. While several efforts to gauge the existence of a “European linguistic type” (cf. Haspelmath, 2001) have been largely devoted to the study of grammatical structures, a systematic account of the\u0000 lexical component of the major European languages has not been attempted yet. Among the lexical units, phraseological expressions\u0000 (e.g. compounds, multiword units, idiomatic expressions, as well as light verb and light noun constructions) represent a relevant\u0000 ground to inquire into, since they are the most transparent and authentic vehicle of common ideas and experiences gradually rooted\u0000 in European communicative realities.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89570456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For years, the study of spoken languages, on the basis of written and then also oral productions, was the only way to investigate the human language capacity. As an introduction to this first volume of Languages in Contrast devoted to the comparison of spoken and signed languages, we propose to look at the reasons for the late emergence of the consideration of signed languages and multimodality in language studies. Next, the main stages of the history of sign language research are summarized. We highlight the benefits of studying cross-modal and multimodal data, as opposed to the isolated investigation of signed or spoken languages, and point out the remaining methodological obstacles to this approach. This contextualization prefaces the presentation of the outline of the volume.
{"title":"Contrasting signed and spoken languages","authors":"Sílvia Gabarró-López, L. Meurant","doi":"10.1075/lic.00024.gab","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00024.gab","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 For years, the study of spoken languages, on the basis of written and then also oral productions, was the only way\u0000 to investigate the human language capacity. As an introduction to this first volume of Languages in Contrast\u0000 devoted to the comparison of spoken and signed languages, we propose to look at the reasons for the late emergence of the\u0000 consideration of signed languages and multimodality in language studies. Next, the main stages of the history of sign language\u0000 research are summarized. We highlight the benefits of studying cross-modal and multimodal data, as opposed to the isolated\u0000 investigation of signed or spoken languages, and point out the remaining methodological obstacles to this approach. This\u0000 contextualization prefaces the presentation of the outline of the volume.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73827801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent work has shown that ASL (American Sign Language) signers not only articulate the language in the space in front of and around them, they interact with that space bodily, such that those interactions are frequently viewpointed. At a basic level, signers use their bodies to depict the actions of characters, either themselves or others, in narrative retelling. These viewpointed instances seem to reflect “embodied cognition”, in that our construal of reality is largely due to the nature of our bodies (Evans and Green, 2006) and “embodied language” such that the symbols we use to communicate are “grounded in recurring patterns of bodily experience” (Gibbs, 2017: 450). But what about speakers of a spoken language such as English? While we know that meaning and structure for any language, whether spoken or signed, affect and are affected by the embodied mind (note that the bulk of research on embodied language has been about spoken, not signed, language), we can learn much about embodied cognition and viewpointed space when spoken languages are treated as multimodal. Here, we compare signed ASL and spoken, multimodal English discourse to examine whether the two languages incorporate viewpointed space in similar or different ways.
{"title":"Embodied cognition","authors":"Terry Janzen","doi":"10.1075/lic.00020.jan","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00020.jan","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Recent work has shown that ASL (American Sign Language) signers not only articulate the language in the space in\u0000 front of and around them, they interact with that space bodily, such that those interactions are frequently viewpointed. At a\u0000 basic level, signers use their bodies to depict the actions of characters, either themselves or others, in narrative retelling.\u0000 These viewpointed instances seem to reflect “embodied cognition”, in that our construal of reality is largely due to the nature of\u0000 our bodies (Evans and Green, 2006) and “embodied language” such that the symbols we use\u0000 to communicate are “grounded in recurring patterns of bodily experience” (Gibbs,\u0000 2017: 450). But what about speakers of a spoken language such as English? While we know that meaning and structure for any\u0000 language, whether spoken or signed, affect and are affected by the embodied mind (note that the bulk of research on embodied\u0000 language has been about spoken, not signed, language), we can learn much about embodied cognition and viewpointed space when\u0000 spoken languages are treated as multimodal. Here, we compare signed ASL and spoken, multimodal English discourse to examine\u0000 whether the two languages incorporate viewpointed space in similar or different ways.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83439396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reformulation is remarkably frequent in discourse and has been the subject of much work in spoken languages, both on written and oral data. Because of its metalinguistic nature, combined with its general aim of clarifying an expression, the act of reformulation offers a window to the way speakers process and adjust their expression in discourse. However, to date, the study of reformulation has hardly taken into account the now increasingly recognized multimodal and semiotically composite nature of language. This study aims to revisit the notion of reformulation from a multimodal perspective by comparing the use and semiotic composition of reformulations in the discourse of speakers and signers, as well as in the productions of interpreters. In doing so, we lay the foundations for a comparative study of discourse in signed and spoken language that accounts for the multimodality and semiotic complexity of language practices in different human ecologies.
{"title":"A multimodal approach to reformulation","authors":"L. Meurant, Aurélie Sinte, Sílvia Gabarró-López","doi":"10.1075/lic.00025.meu","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00025.meu","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Reformulation is remarkably frequent in discourse and has been the subject of much work in spoken languages, both on written and oral data. Because of its metalinguistic nature, combined with its general aim of clarifying an expression, the act of reformulation offers a window to the way speakers process and adjust their expression in discourse. However, to date, the study of reformulation has hardly taken into account the now increasingly recognized multimodal and semiotically composite nature of language. This study aims to revisit the notion of reformulation from a multimodal perspective by comparing the use and semiotic composition of reformulations in the discourse of speakers and signers, as well as in the productions of interpreters. In doing so, we lay the foundations for a comparative study of discourse in signed and spoken language that accounts for the multimodality and semiotic complexity of language practices in different human ecologies.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72669924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The aim of this study is to present a distributional portrait of forms of character-perspective sequences as produced by LSQ (Langue des signes québécoise) signers and Quebec French speakers, in relation to corporal and grammatical marking in a set of recorded discourses. Among the forms we examine are grammatical, corporal and rhythm markers. As for the types of character perspective shift examined, we focus on the nature of the event that is being enacted: speech, thought, action or gesture. The dataset employed in the study consists of short, elicited narratives using video sketches as stimuli. Both Deaf signers and French speakers were asked to describe short scenarios that were displayed without any signing or speech. Half of the stimuli were constructed from a series of factual events containing no emphatic reactions or actions, while the other half included emphatic elements. Twenty-four narratives produced by these two groups were transcribed and coded using ELAN to determine the distribution of character perspective shift sequences (CPS) used in terms of presence (duration) and frequency (occurrences). Further markers were also identified in terms of frequency, which was then analyzed with a factorial ANOVA statistical model. The overall finding of this study is that CPS is used in both language groups, despite their varying results in terms of the distribution of frequency and markers.
本研究的目的是呈现一幅由LSQ(英语:language des signes qusambsicoise)手语使用者和魁北克法语使用者产生的字符视角序列形式的分布肖像，与一组记录话语中的身体和语法标记有关。我们研究的形式包括语法标记、下体标记和节奏标记。至于角色视角转换的类型，我们关注的是正在发生的事件的性质:言语、思想、行动或手势。研究中使用的数据集包括使用视频草图作为刺激的简短，引出的叙述。聋哑人和说法语的人都被要求描述没有任何手语或语言的简短场景。一半的刺激是由一系列事实事件构成的，不包含任何强调的反应或行动，而另一半则包含强调元素。使用ELAN转录和编码这两组产生的24个叙述，以确定角色视角转换序列(CPS)在存在(持续时间)和频率(出现)方面的分布。进一步的标记也在频率方面确定，然后用因子方差分析统计模型进行分析。这项研究的总体发现是，尽管两个语言群体在频率和标记分布方面的结果不同，但都使用了CPS。
{"title":"Character perspective shift sequences and embodiment markers in signed and spoken discourse","authors":"Anne-Marie Parisot, D. Saunders","doi":"10.1075/lic.00022.par","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00022.par","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The aim of this study is to present a distributional portrait of forms of character-perspective sequences as\u0000 produced by LSQ (Langue des signes québécoise) signers and Quebec French speakers, in relation to corporal and grammatical marking\u0000 in a set of recorded discourses. Among the forms we examine are grammatical, corporal and rhythm markers. As for the types of\u0000 character perspective shift examined, we focus on the nature of the event that is being enacted: speech, thought, action or\u0000 gesture. The dataset employed in the study consists of short, elicited narratives using video sketches as stimuli. Both Deaf\u0000 signers and French speakers were asked to describe short scenarios that were displayed without any signing or speech. Half of the\u0000 stimuli were constructed from a series of factual events containing no emphatic reactions or actions, while the other half\u0000 included emphatic elements. Twenty-four narratives produced by these two groups were transcribed and coded using ELAN to determine\u0000 the distribution of character perspective shift sequences (CPS) used in terms of presence (duration) and frequency (occurrences).\u0000 Further markers were also identified in terms of frequency, which was then analyzed with a factorial ANOVA statistical model. The\u0000 overall finding of this study is that CPS is used in both language groups, despite their varying results in terms of the\u0000 distribution of frequency and markers.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84369868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Users of signed and spoken languages regularly engage bodily enactment (commonly referred to as constructed action [CA] for signers and character viewpoint gestures [CVPT] for speakers) for the creation of meaning, but comparatively few studies have addressed how linguistic grammar interfaces with such gestural depictive devices across language modalities. CVPT gestures have been shown to co-occur with spoken language transitive verbs, and when a reference is definite or more accessible in the discourse. In sign, CA often alternates sequentially with fully conventionalized signs. In both CVPT and CA demonstrations, syntactic and pragmatic factors appear to be important. In this work, we consider these patterns by examining short retellings of video-based elicitation stimuli (silent-movie segments) from 10 deaf users of ASL (American Sign Language) and 20 hearing speakers of English. We describe examples of signs and words that co-occur with or precede specific instances of CA and CVPT. We also examine distributions and degrees of enactment across participants in order to consider the question of gesture threshold (Hostetter and Alibali, 2008, 2019). We provide various examples of how gestural material interfaces with linguistic grammar, which has implications for syntactic theory and possible grammatical constraints on such communicative devices.
{"title":"The interface between grammar and bodily enactment in ASL and English","authors":"D. Quinto-Pozos, Fey Parrill, Caitie Coons","doi":"10.1075/lic.00023.qui","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00023.qui","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Users of signed and spoken languages regularly engage bodily enactment (commonly referred to as\u0000 constructed action [CA] for signers and character viewpoint gestures [CVPT] for speakers)\u0000 for the creation of meaning, but comparatively few studies have addressed how linguistic grammar interfaces with such gestural\u0000 depictive devices across language modalities. CVPT gestures have been shown to co-occur with spoken language transitive verbs, and\u0000 when a reference is definite or more accessible in the discourse. In sign, CA often alternates sequentially with fully\u0000 conventionalized signs. In both CVPT and CA demonstrations, syntactic and pragmatic factors appear to be important. In this work,\u0000 we consider these patterns by examining short retellings of video-based elicitation stimuli (silent-movie segments) from 10 deaf\u0000 users of ASL (American Sign Language) and 20 hearing speakers of English. We describe examples of signs and words that co-occur\u0000 with or precede specific instances of CA and CVPT. We also examine distributions and degrees of enactment across participants in\u0000 order to consider the question of gesture threshold (Hostetter and Alibali, 2008, 2019). We provide various examples of how gestural material interfaces with linguistic grammar, which has implications for syntactic theory and possible grammatical constraints on such communicative devices.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76709634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study explores moments in signed and spoken conversation when manual production is on hold and its resulting interactive ramifications. Typically, the temporal structure of gesture and sign can be decomposed into a stream of distinct manual phases. There are moments, however, when this activity is stopped. This may happen for various reasons, e.g., when seeking attention, holding the floor or during overlaps. Holds have mostly been examined in sign languages regarding prosody, syntax, and corresponding to vowel lengthening in spoken languages. In gesture studies, they have been overlooked for not deemed relevant in the gesture-speech interface. By combining contrastive and multimodal analyses, this paper examines the relevance of holds as potential meaning-making practices deployed by LSFB signers and its comparison to Belgian French speakers. In 3 hours of video-recorded material drawn from 3 multimodal corpora, the following question is addressed: what are the roles of holds in the management of interaction within and across languages/modalities? While most of linguistic work considers manual movements to express referential content, the observations here push to reconsider the common boundary set between what constitutes gestural/linguistic phenomena in one language and what does not.
{"title":"When hands stop moving, interaction keeps going","authors":"Alysson Lepeut","doi":"10.1075/lic.00021.lep","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00021.lep","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This study explores moments in signed and spoken conversation when manual production is on hold and its resulting interactive ramifications. Typically, the temporal structure of gesture and sign can be decomposed into a stream of distinct manual phases. There are moments, however, when this activity is stopped. This may happen for various reasons, e.g., when seeking attention, holding the floor or during overlaps. Holds have mostly been examined in sign languages regarding prosody, syntax, and corresponding to vowel lengthening in spoken languages. In gesture studies, they have been overlooked for not deemed relevant in the gesture-speech interface. By combining contrastive and multimodal analyses, this paper examines the relevance of holds as potential meaning-making practices deployed by LSFB signers and its comparison to Belgian French speakers. In 3 hours of video-recorded material drawn from 3 multimodal corpora, the following question is addressed: what are the roles of holds in the management of interaction within and across languages/modalities? While most of linguistic work considers manual movements to express referential content, the observations here push to reconsider the common boundary set between what constitutes gestural/linguistic phenomena in one language and what does not.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82277625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper focuses on how Jean Pillot, author of the most popular French grammar of the sixteenth century in terms of editions, took efforts to contrast his native language with Greek. His Gallicæ linguæ institutio (1550/1561), although written in Latin, contains numerous passages where Pillot subtly confronted French with Greek, surveyed in Section 2, in order to give his audience of educated German speakers a clearer view of the idiosyncrasies of French. In Section 3, I analyze why he preferred Greek to the other languages he knew in quite a number of cases, arguing that this subtle contrastive endeavor bore an indirect pedagogical and ideological load. Section 4 discusses the terminological means Pillot used to confront Greek with French, and their origins. In Section 5, I frame Pillot’s appropriation of Greek grammar in the long history of contrastive language studies, with special reference to the pivotal role of sixteenth-century linguistic analysis.
{"title":"Contrastive grammar in the Renaissance","authors":"Raf Van Rooy","doi":"10.1075/lic.21008.van","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.21008.van","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper focuses on how Jean Pillot, author of the most popular French grammar of the sixteenth century in terms\u0000 of editions, took efforts to contrast his native language with Greek. His Gallicæ linguæ institutio (1550/1561),\u0000 although written in Latin, contains numerous passages where Pillot subtly confronted French with Greek, surveyed in Section 2, in order to give his audience of educated German speakers a clearer view of the\u0000 idiosyncrasies of French. In Section 3, I analyze why he preferred Greek to the other\u0000 languages he knew in quite a number of cases, arguing that this subtle contrastive endeavor bore an indirect pedagogical and\u0000 ideological load. Section 4 discusses the terminological means Pillot used to confront Greek\u0000 with French, and their origins. In Section 5, I frame Pillot’s appropriation of Greek grammar\u0000 in the long history of contrastive language studies, with special reference to the pivotal role of sixteenth-century linguistic\u0000 analysis.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80879216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：